James,
A motion to Rescind Something Previously Adopted is the appropriate
motion to use to annul or repeal the effect of a previous motion.
My only hesitation would be that it is a motion with special voting
rules in RROR. Approval requires 2/3 or a majority if previous notice
was given at the previous meeting or in the call for the present meeting
or a majority of the entire membership - "whichever is the most
practical to obtain".
If this is done in an email ballot, our regular rule for approval is a
majority of the entire voting membership - so this shouldn't be an
issue.
Regards,
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of James Gilb
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 6:10 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] need UC-EC second for Motion to return 802.20 to
individual voting rights
Tony
Thanks for the input, it seems like the motion you propose would achieve
what we want. So, I am OK with it, but I would like to know if
anyone else in the EC can poke holes in the motion. If not, then I
am willing to make the motion you propose.
So, does anyone see that the motion proposed by Tony does not do what we
want, i.e., let 802.20 return to its P&P and OM?
Should we say "... normal operation under 802.20 P&P and superior rules,
effective immediately."?
==============
Moved to rescind the UC-EC motion of 16th July 2007, requiring
802.20 working group votes to be conducted on the basis of entity
affiliation, and to return 802.20 to normal operation under the
LMSC P&P, effective immediately.
===============
James Gilb
Tony Jeffree wrote:
Mark -
Thanks for the clarification.
I just unearthed the wording of the UC-EC motion of 16th July 07:
"Effective immediately, all votes and ballots in the 802.20 working
group shall be conducted on the basis of entity affiliation, with
one vote per entity. Entities and affiliation shall be as determined
by the 802 EC 802.20 OC, based on members' declarations of
their primary affiliation and other information available to the OC."
That being the case, and noting that we need to get rid of all of
the requirements of this motion, including the requirement for the
OC to make determinations of affiliation, I suspect that what is
needed to unpick all of this is a motion of the following form:
"Moved to rescind the UC-EC motion of 16th July 2007, requiring 802.20
working group votes to be conducted on the basis of entity
affiliation,
and to return 802.20 to normal operation under the LMSC P&P, effective
immediately."
Regards,
Tony
At 15:11 26/06/2008, Klerer, Mark wrote:
Tony and all,
Sorry for the delay in responding (but the last e-mails were send
when
it was deep night on the East Coast).
The facts on balloting in 802.20 are a little bit more complicated
and
I believe a part of the confusion may stem from the difference in the
way the sponsor ballot voting was mandated and the way voting was
mandated for the working group. Here are the facts:
1. Voting in the Working Group
In the working group individuals gain membership on an individual
basis via the normal 802 rules. Individuals must provide their
affiliation. These affiliations may/have been verified. Based on that
affiliation the individual becomes part of a "unit" (I am using his
as
a neutral term between "entity" and "bloc"). Each "unit" designates a
voter and an alternate voter. Only the designated voter (or
alternate)
is entitled to vote on motions. A "unit" has a vote only if it has at
least one individual who has earned membership while affiliated
with that "unit".
2. Voting in the Sponsor Ballot
In the sponsor ballot pool individuals were assigned by the Oversight
Committee to blocs. All individuals were entitled to vote, (i.e.
there
are no designated voters). The net vote of a bloc was then
computed based on the approved algorithm.
I hope this at least gets the facts on the table.
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of Tony Jeffree
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 4:21 AM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: need UC-EC second for Motion to return 802.20 to
individual voting rights
Since the voting on this hasn't started yet, and this is logically
the discussion period before the vote, it would probably be a good
idea to get the motion right before we do.
Correct me if I am wrong (Mark?) but I don't believe this is a case
of returning 8.2.20 to individual voting or changing anything to do
with voting rights - 802.20 participants still vote individually and
gain voting membership by the normal 802 rules. The difference is
that as per the UC-EC decision of <<insert date here>>, those
individual votes are tallied by the 802.20 Chair according to which
bloc the individual is deemed to be part of.
Returning 802.20 to individual voting doesn't do what we want it to
do, because 802.20 is already doing individual voting and already has
individual membership. It is how those individual votes are tallied
according to blocs that is the problem we want to remove.
If we pass the existing motion, it is effectively a no-op, because we
still won't have removed the aggregation of votes into blocs. So for
the motion to have any effect, it needs to be worded along the lines
of:
"Moved to rescind the requirement, imposed on 802.20 on <<whatever
date it was>> by the UC-EC, for individual votes to be aggregated
according to blocs."
I would suggest that the mover and seconder accept the above
replacement text as a friendly amendment to the motion.
Regards,
Tony
At 00:10 26/06/2008, James Gilb wrote:
All
As a reminder, the motion was:
-------------
Moved to return the 802.20 working group to individual voting at the
beginning of the July 2008 plenary meeting. Voting rights shall be
determined on historical attendance credits per the 802.20 P&P, and
superior rules.
--------------
James Gilb
Michael Lynch wrote:
Paul.
I second it.
Regards,
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: "Paul Nikolich" <paul.nikolich@ATT.NET>
To: "STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG"
<STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Sent: 6/25/08 13:56
Subject: [802SEC] need UC-EC second for Motion to return 802.20 to
individual voting rights
All,
Can we please get someone to second this motion?
The motion will be decided by the UC-EC, so we'll need a UC-EC
member to second it. As a reminder, the UC-EC consists of: voters:
Gilb, Lemon, Law, Lynch, Kraemer, Hawkins, Rigsbee, Jeffree, Heile
and non-voters Thompson, Nikolich.
Regards,
--Paul
----- Original Message ----- From: "Pat Thaler"
<pthaler@BROADCOM.COM>
To: <STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting
rights
James,
I disagree regarding this statement:
It has been pointed out to me that we can do entity voting
(apparently
mixed voting was done away with, but is still listed in the IEEE
SA
web
pages) under the rules defined by the SA.
While the SA has defined rules for entity voting, it isn't clear
how to
apply them to have one Working Group with a mix of entity and
individual
voting PARs. For example, there are different membership
requirements
for a working group developing standards under the entity method
and
under the individual method. Does a Working Group with a mix of
PARs
have two voting lists - one entity and one individual? If so,
which is
used for voting on items that aren't tied to one of the PARs such
as
electing a chair or a directed position regarding another group's
PAR?
There is also a difference in sponsor operating procedures. For
sponsors
developing individual standards, 5.1.1 of the SB-OM says they must
have
P & P and can use the model operating procedures but then it goes
on to
say: "There are also operating procedures available for Sponsors
developing a standard using the entity method of participation,
and
Sponsors shall utilize these procedures as the basis for entity
standardization." So there are different (model) operating
procedures
for sponsors depending on whether they are developing under the
individual and entity method.
Therefore, it is not clear that the rules defined by the SA cover
operation of a sponsor or a Working Group developing PARs under
both
individual and entity methods at the same time. Because the
procedures
for an entity sponsor allow sponsor voting to be by individuals,
it
might be possible to merge entity and individual projects into an
single
sponsor. Merging them into a single WG presents more of a problem.
Regards,
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of James Gilb
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 5:52 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting
rights
Wow, I am having some trouble typing here.
In the motion passed on July 16, 2007, "shall e as" should have
been
"shall be as"
Instead of:
If 802.20 (or any other group) wants to create a PAR with entity
voting
or to modify a current PAR so that it uses entity voting.
I meant to say:
If 802.20 (or any other group) wants to create a PAR with entity
voting
or to modify a current PAR so that it uses entity voting, it can
decide
to do that by a vote of the Working Group, subject to approval by
the
802 EC and NesCom or RevCom, as appropriate.
I am looking for a second and/or suggestions to help with the
wording.
James Gilb
James Gilb wrote:
All
Some corrections (thanks to Bob Grow).
June 2006, SASB took action removing 802.20 officers
December 2007 (not 2008) dissolving SASB oversight committee and
returning all oversight to the EC.
I verified that the UC-EC meet in San Francisco in closed
session,
July
16, 2007. The public minutes state that the following motion was
approved:
"Effective immediately, all votes and ballots in the 802.20
working
group shall be conducted on the basis of entity affiliation, with
one
vote per entity. Entities and affiliation shall e as determined
by
the
802 EC 802.20 OC, based on members' declarations of their primary
affiliation and other information available to the OC."
It has been pointed out to me that we can do entity voting
(apparently
mixed voting was done away with, but is still listed in the IEEE
SA
web
pages) under the rules defined by the SA. This may require some
clarifications to the 802 EC P&P and OM as well as the 802.20 P&P
and
OM.
It was also pointed out that 802.20 did not use entity voting
process,
it used one based on voting blocs.
If 802.20 (or any other group) wants to create a PAR with entity
voting
or to modify a current PAR so that it uses entity voting.
The goal of the motion is to return 802.20 to its original state
and
to
allow 802.20 members to determine the best course of action,
including,
if they wish, to switch to entity voting.
James Gilb
PS: Thanks for the responses from everyone that helped me to
clarify
the
history and status of 802.20.
James Gilb wrote:
All
I am looking for a second for this one. Paul N. will determine
the
valid voting pool (all EC or UC-EC).
Rationale:
On 16 July 2007, the UC-EC voted to make voting for 802.20 to be
based
on entity affiliation.
SASB returned oversight of the 802.20 WG to the UC-EC in
December
2007.
Dec 2008 SASB minutes -- "Move to (1) disband the SASB Oversight
Committee, and (2) return oversight control to the 802 Executive
Committee with an offer of continuing support for situations
where
the
802 EC wishes to seek our help."
The above motion passed after reviewing the EC motion from
November
2006
requesting that "the NC-EC be dissolved once the 802.20 standard
is
approved by the SASB."
The 802.20 standard has been approved by the SASB.
Motion
-------------
Moved to return the 802.20 working group to individual voting at
the
beginning of the July 2008 plenary meeting. Voting rights shall
be
determined on historical attendance credits per the 802.20 P&P,
and
superior rules.
--------------
Furthermore, the 802.20 rules and the 802 LMSC rules do not
explicitly
deal with entity voting Working Groups (For example, what
constitutes
an entity? In 802.20 sponsor ballot, various individuals were
grouped
by the oversight committee into a single entity vote.)
If we want to convert 802.20 to entity or mixed balloting group,
we
should take to the time to write the P&P to support this. In
the
mean
time, I think it would be best to return 802.20 to where it was.
James Gilb
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.